.  • 

The  Water  Question 


Reply  of 


PRESIDENT    TEV1S 

OF 
BAY  CITES  WATER  CO. 


TO 


MR.   CHICKERING 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SANTA  BARH*i?\ 

/  / 

REPLY    OF    PRESIDENT    TEVIS    TO 
MR.   CHICftERING. 


W.  H.  CHICKERING    ESQ., 

Attorney  for  the  Contra  Costa  Water  Company, 

Oakland,   California. 
SIR: 

There  appeared  in  the  Oakland  newspapers  of  January 
3.  190-..  a  c(  mmunirati'  n.  sirned  with  y  ur  name,  in  which 
you  address  t<  me  certain  que:-tkns  to  which  you  may  or 
may  TV  t  have  expected  a  rep  y. 

As  the  questi'  ns  were  definitely  framed,  and  concerned 
the  matter  of  the  pn  p-  sed  municipal  water  plant  which  the 
representatives  of  your  city  have  se'ected  as  a  suitab'e  plant 
to  be  purchased  by  the  citizens  of  Oakland,  I,  now  the  bond 
ordinance  having  finally  passed,  answer  your  questions  in 
detail. 

In  prefacing  my  replies,  however,  I  will  say  that  your 
questions  do  not  come  to  me  in  the  aspect  of  a  sincere  request 
for  information  sought  for  proper  purposes.  Your  "letter" 
was  not  sent  to  me;  indeed,  the  first  and  only  knowledge  I 
have  ever  had  of  its  existence  was  when  my  attention  was 
called  to  its  appearance  in  the  Oakland  newspapers.  It  was 
obviously  issued  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the  people  of 
Oakland  to  the  advantage  of  your  corporation  client  in  the 
contest  which  it  is  now  waging  against  them,  and  the  ques- 
tions contained  in  the  letter  were  manifestly  there  with  a 
view,  and  in  the  hope,  of  obtaining  from  me  some  statement 
which  might  be  distorted  in  furtherance  of  that  end. 

The  first  six  of  your  series  of  seventeen  questions  are 
directed  to  the  titles  upon  which  rest  the  properties  which 
the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  is  now  offering  to  sell  the 
City  of  Oakland.     I  will  remark  that  those  titles  are  perfect. 
They  are  founded  upon  most  familiar  law,  upon  which  we 
have  the  written  opinions  of  many  leading  lawyers  of  San      Titles     to    Bay 
Francisco.     The  officers  of  the  City  of  Oakland  have  been  citie«     properties 
advised  of  the  titles  and  the  muniments  upon  which  they  Perfect- 
rest.     I  would  say  further  that  before  the  city  need  obligate 
itself  to  purchase  the  properties,  the  soundness  of  those  titles 
must  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  attorneys  of  the  City 
of  Oakland.     Further  than  this,  our  company  remains  obli- 
gated, not  only  to  insure  the  validity  of  those  titles,  but  also 
the  quiet  possession  of  the  property  itself;  and  to  such  end      Oakland    need 
it  stands  ready  to  deposit  whatever  security  may  be  required.   not    commit  her- 

The  questions  which  you  present,  with  their  answers,  self    to    purchase 
are   'iS  follows:  until     satisfied    as 

First — When  did  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  acquire  *°  title«- 
the  rights  it  claims  to  the  lands  it  proposes  to  convey  to  the 
City  of  Oakland? 

ANSWER — We  own  the  lands  absolutely  in  fee  simple, 
having  acquired  them  by  purchase  at  various  intervals  since 


the  incorporation  of  our  company. 

Second — When  did  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  acquire 
the  rights  to  the  waters  it  proposes  to  convey  to  the  City, 
and  how  were  those  rights  acquired? 

ANSWER — By  the  usual  legal  methods  subsequent  to 
the  incorporation  of  our  company. 

Ripar'*nt  rfered  Third— At  the  time  or  times  of  such  acquisition,  or  at 

n.°*  any  subsequent  time,  has  it  acquired,  either  by  grant,  con- 

demnation, or  in  any  way,  the  rights  of  riparian  owners  along 
the  streams  below  the  sites  of  its  proposed  dams  ? 

ANSWER — It  has  not;  no  such  rights  are  necessary. 
Riparian  owners  will  not  be  interfered  with. 

Fourth — What  at  present  becomes  of  the  storm  waters 
it  proposes  to  impound? 

ANSWER — They  run  to  waste,  into  the  Bay  of  San  Fran- 
cisco. We  have  not  attempted  to  trace  them  further. 

Fifth — Is  it  not  true  that  these  waters  furnish  the  pres- 
ent supply  for  the  Niles  Cone,  so  termed?  And  does  the 
Bay  Cities  Water  Company  claim  rights  superior  to  the  rights 
of  those  who  now  take  water  from  the  artesian  belt  surround- 
ing the  Niles  Cone? 

ANSWER — The  waters  we  take  do  not  furnish  the  supply 
Niles    con      wa     f°f  tlie  ^iles  Cone. 

tcr  not  interfered  Sixth — Has  it  obtained  from  all,  or  from  any,  of  the 

with.  people  using  such  storm  waters  in  these  artesian  belts,  the 

right  to  impound  the  same? 

ANSWER — It  has  not  and  requires  no  such  right. 

Not      necessar  Seventh — Must  the  wooden  conduit  it  is  proposed  to  use 

that  conduit  cross  *n  transmitting  the  water  from  the  reservoirs  to  the  City  of 
Spring  Valley  Oakland  necessarily  cross  the  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley 
lands.  Water  Company  in  its  course  from  the  contemplated  reser- 

voirs to  the  City  of  Oakland? 

ANSWER — It  is  not  necessary  that  the  conduit  cross  any 
lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company. 

Conduit  will  not  Eighth — Is  it  or  is  it  not  the  fact  that  the  wooden  conduit 

pass  through,  un-  ^or  a  distance  °f  several  miles  is  to  be  laid  at  the  bottom  of  a 
der  OP  near  Spring  reservoir  intended  to  be  constructed  and  filled  with  water 
Valley  reservoir,  by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company? 

ANSWER — Such  is  not  a  fact.  The  pipe  line  will  not  at 
any  point  be  laid  within  the  limits  of  any  lands  of  the  Spring 
Valley  Water  Company  possible  of  being  used  as  a  reservoir. 

Ninth — Has  it  acquired  from  that  company  the  right 
.    to  lay  its  wooden  conduit  aloner,  over,  upon,  through  or  under 
any  of  the  lands  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company? 
ANSWER — It  has  not. 

Tenth — If  it  is  in  contemplation  to  lay  its  wooden  con- 
duit for  a  distance  of  several  miles  at  the  bottom  of  a  reser- 


voir  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  how  are  repairs  to 
be  made  in  event  of  a  break  in  the  woodSti  conduit? 

ANSWER — We  have  no  intention  of  laying  any  part 
of  the  wooden  conduit  within  the  limits  of  any  Spring  Val- 
ley reservoir. 

Eleventh — Can  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company,  as  a  pri- 
vate corporation,  contemplating  not  the  furnishing  of  water 
to  a  municipality,  but  the  sale  of  its  plant  to  such  a  municipal-  s    °"  em ^"*' °"e 
ity,  condemn  the  right  of  way  across  the  lands  of  another  )and8  not    nec*s* 
water  company?  8ary. 

ANSWER — We  do  not  contemplate  any  such  condem- 
nation proceedings.  It  is  not  necessary  to  cross  lands  of, 
another  water  company. 

Twelfth — What  evidence  has  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Com- 
pany not  in  existence  at  the  time  Mr.  Desmond  Fitzgerald 
condemned  its  scheme,  to  show  that  the  quality  of  storm 
waters  is  not  bad,  as  alleged  by  him,  and  that  such  waters 
only  become  potable  by  filtering  or  aerating? 

ANSWER — Desmond   Fitzgerald   made   no   such    allega- 
tions.    He  never  suggested  filtering   and  aeration  for  the      Puritx  of  water 
storm  waters      To  the  contrary   he    says:     "It   has    always   unciuestloned- 
been  well  established  that  in  deep,  well  planned  reservoirs, 
comparatively  free  from  organic  matter,  there  is  a  decided 
improvement  in  the  quality   of    water,  due  to  storage  in  an 
open  reservoir,  the  opposite  being  true  of  ground  or  filtered 
water." 

Mr.  Fitzgerald  made  certain  suggestions  in  respect  of 
the  plans  as  then  before  him  concerning  the  protection  of 
the  waters  from  contamination.  The  recommendations 
made  by  him  have  been  included  in  the  new  plan  which  is 
now  before  the  people.  These  new  plans  have  been  passed 
upon  by  the  board  of  engineers  recently  appointed  on  behalf 
of  the  city,  who  examined  the  physical  features  of  the  prop- 
osition from  the  standpoint  of  these  plans,  and  they  stated 
concerning  the  water  as  follows : 

"This  consideration  (the  geology)  in  connection  with  the 
fact  that  the  watershed  is  so  sparsely  populated,  PLACES  THE 
WATER  SUPPLY  BEYOND  CRITICISM  \  and  its  crystal  clearness 
at  the  time  of  our  visit  bears  practical  evidence  of  its  favor- 
able surroundings." 

Thirteenth — Is  it,  or  is  it  not,  the  fact  that  only  four      city's  Engineers 
days  were  occupied  by  the  Board  of  Engineers  recently  ap-  made     more     ex- 

Sainted,  upon  the  properties  to  be  conveyed  to  the  City  of  tended     examina- 
akland,  in  making  actual  examination  of  the  physical  feat-  tion     than       did 
ures  of  the  properties  and  in  going  over  the  eighty  or  more   Fitzgerald. 
square  miles  of  watershed  claimed  by  the  Bay  Cities  Water 
Company  ? 

A  WER — It  is  not  a  fact.  The  members  of  that  Board 
of  £  ^-  eers  were  three  times  as  long  in  the  field  and  many 


days  longer  in  summing  up  their  notes  than  was  Desmond 
Fitzgerald. 

City    absolutely  Fourteenth — Do  you  think  the  City  of  Oakland  amply 

protected  by  bonds  protected  by  a  bond  of  $1,000,000  when  it  is  proposed  to  pay 
and  securities  of-  £O  yOur  Company  $3,750,000  for  a  plant  from  which  it  may 
fered  by  Bay  Cit-  never  be  arjie  ^o  obtain  water,  unless  each  of  the  foregoing 
ics  Water  Co.  questions  can  be  satisfactorily  answered? 

ANSWER — The  City  of  Oakland  will  be  made  perfectly 
safe  against  any  loss  whatever  through  putting  in  this  muni- 
cipal water  system.  Whatever  sum,  or  whatever  bond,  or 
whatever  form  of  security  may  be  considered  necessary  to 
that  end  will  be  provided.  Let  your  qualms  as  a  taxpayer 
quiet  on  that  score.  You  will  not  be  mulcted  because  of 
any  failure  on  our  part  to  deliver  what  we  sell,  and  to 
insure  it  to  the  city  free  and  clear  of  any  difficulties  which 
your  client,  or  its  associate  in  interest,  the  Spring  Valley 
Water  Company,  or  any  one  else  can  make  for  it. 

Proposition  that  Fifteenth — Would  you,  as  a  man  of  wealth,  invest  your 

bonds  be  based  on  means  in  bonds  secured  alone  by  property  which  a  company 
water  plant  alone  proposes  to  convey  while  another  water  company  is  already 
illegal  and  absurd,  in  the  field? 

ANSWER — This  question  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Bay  Cities  proposition,  but  if  I  were  to  follow  in  the  footsteps 
of  your  client,  Mr.  Dingee,  who  did  this  very  thing  when  he 
entered  the  field  with  the  Oakland  Water  Company  in  com- 
petition with  the  old  Contra  Costa  Company,  I  would  prob- 
ably invest  my  means  in  such  bonds. 

Sixteenth — Did  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  receive 
from  the  Spring  Va.ley  Water  Company  a  letter,  dated  Sep- 
tember 24,  1903,  with  reference  to  the  rights  of  the  latter 
company  to  the  waters  claimed  by  your  Company,  and,  if  so, 
what  response  has  been  made  thereto? 

ANSWER — Yes;  on  that  date  Spring  Valley  Water  Com- 
pany sent  us  a  communication  informing  us  that  it  claimed 
the  right  to  certain  waters  which  are  a  small  p<  rti<  n  of  <  ur 
present  contemplated  supply  to  Oak  and.  No  reply  was 
made  to  this  communication,  as  none  was  required,  or,  so 
far  as  we  know,  expected. 

$28,000,000  saved  Seventeenth — If,  as  stated  by  your  C<  mpany  in  a  recent 

to  Oakland  by  ac-  communication  to  the  Council,  a  profit  of  s<  me  $28,000.000 
quisition  of  Bay  is  to  result  to  the  City  fnm  the  aoquisiti-  n  by  the  City  «.f 
Cities  Water  Co.'s  your  plant,  notwithstanding  the  r<  mpetiti'-n  of  the  ('<  nt-a 
pl«nt.  Costa  Water  Company,  why  is  it  that  you  and  your  asso- 

ciates, all  moneyed  men,  do  not  complete  the  project  and 
realize  that  vast  sum  for  yourselves? 

ANSWER — The  said  sum  of  $28,000,000  is  the  amount 
which  the  people  of  Oakland  will  save  during  the  peri'  d  of 
forty  years  through  owning  a  municipal  plant,  figured  upon 
the  basis  of  the  rates  which  your  client  is  now  charging,  and 


upon  a  normal  increase  of  population  of  the  City  during  that 
period.  In  other  words,  it  your  client  succeeds  in  defeating 
this  movement  of  the  people  to  rid  themselves  of  its  domina- 
tion, and  can  hold  the  people  in  its  power  during  the  ensuing 
forty  years,  it  will  have  collected  at  the  end  of  that  time  from 
them  "$22, ooo, ooo  more  than  they  would  have  been  obliged 
to  pay  for  water  if  the  forthcoming  bond  election  had  been 
carried.  At  the  end  of  those  forty  years,  also,  they  will  still 
be  paying  your  client  the  same  rates  as  now,  instead  of  only 
twenty  per  cent  of  those  rates;  whereas,  if  the  bond  election 
be  carried  and  our  works  installed  the  municipal  plant  would 
at  the  end  of  the  forty-year  period  be  fully  paid  for  and  the 
rates  of  water  would  then  be  reduced  80%  below  the  present 
rates.  Moreover,  the  people  of  Oakland  would  then  have  a 
property  belonging  to  the  city  worth  vastly  more  than  the 
$6,000,000  originally  paid  for  it,  instead  of  having  built  up 
for  your  client  a  property  which  it  would  probably  regard 
as  worth  upwards  of  $30,000,000,  and  into  which  it  would 
not  meanwhile  have  put  a  dollar  of  outside  money.  It  seems 
to  me,  in  view  of  these  facts,  that  any  taxpayer  who,  with  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  conditions,  would  go  before  his 
neighbors  and  fellow-citizens,  and  advise  them  to  defeat  our 
proposition,  cannot  justly  complain  if  his  zeal  be  attributed 
to  partisan  advocacy  rather  than  to  public  spirit. 

Having  thus,  with  such  thoroughness  as  I  can  command  Bay  Cities  did 
answered  each  of  the  seventeen  interrogatories  which  you  "°t  seek  to  sell  to 
were  pleased  to  propound,  I  now,  in  like  quest  of  informa-  Oakland;  Oakland 
tion,  and  in  order  that  the  public  may  be  apprised  of  the  true  Sou9ht  Ba/  Cities, 
facts  of  this  controversy,  beg  to  address  to  you  certain  ques- 
tions, and  urge  response  thereto. 

These  questions,  by. singular  coincidence,  are  seventeen 
in  number.  I  may  preface  them  by  saying  that  cur  attitude 
at  the  beginning  of  this  contest  was  that  of  a  seller  of  a  water 
plant  to  the  City  of  Oakland.  Two  years  had  been  spent 
by  us  in  negotiating  with  the  officials  of  that  city  over  the 
sale  of  this  plant,  while  they  on  their  side  had  been  acting 
in  response  to  the  specific  demands  of  the  practically  unan- 
imous public  sentiment  which  had  elected  them  to  office. 
We  were  content  to  offer  our  plant  upon  its  merits  and  with- 
hold ourselves  wholly  from  otherwise  influencing  the  minds 
of  the  people  towards  its  acceptance.  It  was  no  purpose  of 
ours  to  enter  for  a  moment  the  arena  of  controversy  and  by 
any  means  or  through  any  process  seek  to  further  the  pur- 
chasing of  our  property.  At  the  beginning  of  this  matter 
it  was  the  people  who  asked  for  our  proposals;  it  was  not  we 
who  had  sought  them.  Having  made  our  proposition,  we 
were  content  to  leave  the  result  with  them. 

While  the  minds  of  the  people  were  yet  unclouded  by 
the  organized  endeavor  which  your  client  has  since  made  to 
influence  them  to  its  end,  there  was  submitted  to  their  con- 


sideration  as  a  referendum,  the  proposition  which  our  com- 
pany had  made,  along  with  another.  The  result  of  that 
canvass  showed  a  poll  of  5,065  votes  out  of  a  total  of  7,135, 
or  more  than  the  necessary  two-thirds  required  by  law  to 
accept  our  proposition,  had  such  been  a  legal  vote.  Indeed, 
as  an  evidence  of  how  slightly  the  plant  of  your  client  is  fav- 
ored or  desired  by  the  people  of  Oakland,  there  were  out  of 
the  total  but  57  persons  who  expressed  themselves  definitely 
in  favor  of  acquiring  it,  and  but  367  who  were  opposed  to 
either  of  the  plans  submitted.  The  total  of  the  two  last  may, 
I  believe,  be  taken  to  represent  the  aggregate  of  your  Oak- 
land stockholders,  bondholders,  employes,  and  those  who 
are  dependent  upon  your  establishment  for  favors. 

Convinced,  therefore,  that  the  people  of  Oakland  desired 
our  plant,  we  were  still  completely  content  to  withhold  our- 
selves from  any  part  in  the  question  of  the  final  vote  upon 
the  issuance  of  the  bonds  for  its  purchase.     But  your  client 
has  created  a  conflict,  and  through  its  attorney,  yourself,  I 
am  specifically,  and  by  name,  and  in  the  most  direct,  com- 
prehensive and  public   way,   drawn  into  the  fight.     I   am 
reluctant  to  engage  in  a  contest,  but,  being  challenged,  under 
conditions  which  demand  a  defense,  I  do  not  shun  the  battle. 
I  shall  not  stand  idly  by  and  see  our  titles  slandered, 
the  purity  of  our  water  denied,  the  engineering  features  of  our 
proposed  construction   denounced,   the   people   falsely   told 
that  the  installation  of  our  plant  will  increase  their  municipal 
taxation,  or  with  equal  falsity  advised  that  the  trumped-up 
litigation  threatened  by  your  client  and  its  associate  in  this 
matter,  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  will  prevent  us 
from  constructing  the  plant  if  the  bonds  are  voted,  or  will 
interfere  with  delivery  of  water  to  Oakland  at  the  completion 
thereof — and   our   entire    project    stigmatized    as    "costly," 
"chimerical"  and  "rotten."     I  shall  not  sit  idly  by,  I  say, 
and  witness  the  perpetration  by  your  client  of  these  assaults 
upon  our  company  and  the  people  of  Oakland.     But  I  shall 
do  what  I  consider  the  conditions  require  to  counteract  the 
wrong  impression   which   your   client   is   now   industriously 
seeking  to  produce  upon  the  public  mind  of  Oakland. 

Let  me  then  commence  by  asking  you  the  following 
question : 

Taxation  not  in-  First — Why  does   your   client  tell    the  people  that  the 

creased.  putting  in  of  the  Bay  Cities  plant  would  increase  city  tax- 

ation? Do  you  and  your  client  seriously  mean  to  contend 
that  putting  in  the  Bay  Cities  plant  would  increase  taxation? 
The  putting  in  of  the  Bay  Cities  plant  will  reduce  taxa- 
tion, not  increase  it.  By  putting  in  the  Bay  Cities  plant,  the 
city  would  save  at  once  over  $71,300.00  in  municipal  charges 
which  it  now  pays  your  client  for  city  supply.  This  sum  is 
annually  increasing  with  the  growth  of  the  city  and  the  en- 
largement of  its  needs  for  water.  Within  ten  years  it  will 


have  increased  to  $100,000.00  per  annum;  a  sum  equal  to  the 
total  operating  expenses  of  the  plant.  Nor  does  the  city  now 
get  anything  like  the  quantity  of  water  necessary  to  sprinkle 
its  streets,  or  even  keep  its  macadamized  streets  in  repair, 
which  expensive  pavements  it  is  notorious  are  deteriorating 
for  lack  of  sufficient  water  in  season  to  maintain  them  in 
condition.  As  for  parks,  they  are  poorly  watered,  and  one 
or  more  of  them,  because  of  the  cost  of  water,  are  not  irrigated 
at  all. 

With  the  municipal  plant,  the  city  would  have  all  the 
water  it  needs  for  parks,  streets,  schools,  fire  hydrants  and 
whatever  else,  which  it  is  safe  to  say  would  be  over  twice  the 
amount  it  now  consumes,  and  it  would  save  the  $71,300.00 
which  it  now  pays  to  your  client. 

Further  than  this:  The  city  has,  during  the  last  four  Litigation  with 
years  and  a  half,  from  and  including  the  year  ending  June  Contra  Costa  in- 
30,  1901,  spent  $50,227.85  in  litigating  with  your  client  over  creases  taxation. 
the  subject  of  water  rates.  This  litigation  is  perennial,  and 
will  go  on  as  long  as  your  corporation  remains  in  the  field  as 
a  vendor  of  water  for  domestic  consumption.  It  is  an  inci- 
dent of  operation  of  the  water  system  by  your  particular 
private  enterprise.  If  the  people  would  cease  from  troubling 
over  water  rates  while  your  client  is  their  sole  source  of  ser- 
vice, they  must  pay  for  that  peace — and  they  must  pay  a  price 
corel  ative  in  magnitude  to  that  which,  in  consideration  of 
peace,  a  conqueror  demands  of  the  population  of  a  subjugated 
territory :  they  must  pay  whatever  rates  your  client  may  feel 
it  to  its  interests  to  impose.  The  people  will  not  submit  to 
this,  even  if  your  client  remains  in  the  field,  so  the  cost  of 
litigation  against  your  company  should  properly  be  considered 
a  continuous  annual  source  of  outlay,  and  so  figured  in  the 
estimates. 

The  painful  part  about  this  feature  oj  litigation  is  that  the      City  P'^*   Con' 
people  pay  all  costs  and  attorney's  fees  of  both  your  side  and  tra    Cost»'s    !•••' 
their  own.     Your  client's  cost  of  litigation  and  lawyers  in  its  exP«nse8    »•  w«" 
tuits  against  the  city  during  the  like  period  of  four  and  one-  as  '  s  own* 
half  years  has  been  the  enormous  figure  of  $158, 468. 99; over 
three  times  tl-'e  cost  of  the  same  litigation  and  attorney's  fees  on 
part  of  the  city.    This  large  sum  you  have  charged  up  in  your 
bill  of  expenses  and  it  has  been  figured  in  the  basis  of  rates 
which  your  client  has  been  enabled  to  declare  against  the 
water  consumers  of  the  city.     It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that 
under  municipal  ownership  this  sort  of  thing  will  cease. 

If  the  municipal  plant  started  in  with  all  the  people  tak- 
ing water  from  it,  the  water  rates  could  be  at  once  reduced 
24  1-3  per  cent,  and  the  existing  tax  rates  would  in  no  manner 
be  affected. 

In  this  connection  I  should  remark  that  the  people  of 
Oakland  have  not  started  into  this  matter  of  providing  them- 
selves with  a  municipal  water  plant  through  any  kindly  feel- 


8 


futile  e 
bu  '  ^ 
tra  Costa  p^ant. 


ings  towards  your  client,  or  through  any  disposition  to  tem- 

porize with  it,  or  to  share  with  it  the  business  of  furnishing 

water  to  themselves.      The   specific  purpose  which  they  had 

in  view  in   arranging  to  put  in  a  plant  of  their  own,  is  to 

get  rid  of  your  corporation  and  its  plant.     They  wish  to  get 

rid  of  it  for  many  reasons  :  the  rates  are  intolerably  high,  and 

centra  Costa  a  it  has  so  adjusted  its  affairs  that  they  cannot  be  lowered;  it 

menace    to      effi-   is    in   constant   war   with   the   people   in   the   Courts  over 

•iency      of      city  rates,  causing  large  sums  of  expense,  both  to  themselves  and 

government.  your  corporation,  both  of   which  costs    the    people   must    pay 

and  it  is  a  constant  menace  to  the  efficiency  of  the  legislative 

and  administrative  arms  of  the  city  government.     Influences 

of  this  sort  tend  to  lower  the  standard  of  moral  character 

pervading  the  municipal  government,   to   degrade   politics, 

and  ofttimes  unjustly  to  subject  those  elected  to  office  to  the 

odium  of  popular  suspicion.     For  these  and  other  reasons 

they  have  decided  that  the  only  relief  possible  is  to  get  rid 

of  your  client  entirely. 

^or  a  ^on?  time  they  had  hoped  to  purchase  its  plant, 
an(^  ky  acquiring  its  property  eliminate  it  from  the  field. 
They  worked  assiduously  with  your  client's  management 
for  months  and  months,  reaching  into  years,  in  the  hope 
that  it  would  be  induced  to  sell,  and  that  some  reasonable 
valuation  of  the  property  could  be  agreed  upon.  In  the  per- 
son of  Desmond  Fitzgerald  they  procured  an  engineer  of 
repute  to  appraise  the  value  of  those  properties,  who  found 
them  to  be  worth  $2,689,185.00.  The  people,  through  their 
Mayor,  were  willing  to  allow  you  a  profit  of  nearly  a  million 
dollars  and  would  have  purchased  your  plant  at  $3,500,000.00; 
but  you  chose  to  consider  this  figure  preposterous  and  refused 
to  treat  further  upon  the  subject. 

There  is  no  escape  for  the  people  through  dealing  with 
you;  there  is  but  one  resource  left,  that  is  for  them  to  put  in 
a  plant  of  their  own.  When  they  concluded  to  do  this  they 
did  not  expect  their  proceedings  to  that  end  to  move  on  with- 
out such  opposition  as  your  client  and  its  coterie  of  interests 
might  be  able  to  make.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  57 
people,  who,  by  their  vote  at  the  referendum,  had  shown 
themselves  interested  in  your  properties  and  some  of  the  367 
who  had  shown  their  indifference  would  write  letters  to  news- 
papers, issue  circulars  and  have  them  distributed,  and  by 
whatever  means  possible  try  to  generate  an  apparent  popular 
sentiment  against  the  purchase  of  the  plant  which  the  people 
had  selected.  They  well  recognize  also  that  your  client  would 
create  a  literary  bureau,  and  that  through  such  instrument 
it  would  disseminate  sophistical  arguments  against  the  advan- 
tage to  the  people  of  the  proposed  municipal  plant,  and  against 
the  advisability  of  its  installation. 

Taxes  decreased  One  of  these  sophistries  is  that  the  tax  rate  would  be 

by    a      municipal   enormously   raised  through  your  client's   competition  with 
plant.  the  municipal  plant.    I  shall  show  that  it  would  not.    Let  the 


water  be  furnished  the  people  entirely  free,  and  the  tax  rate 
would  be  but  $2.00,  or  74  cents  above  the  rate  now  paid,  which 
present  rate  is  $1.26  on  the  $100  of  valuation. 

With  all  the  people  taking  water  from  the  city  plant 
and  the  tax  rate  remaining  as  it  now  is,  undisturbed,  there 
would  at  once  be  a  reduction  in  water  rates  of  24  1-3  per  cent. 
This  fact  becomes  apparent  upon  reference  to  the  following 
statement : 

Collections  of  Contra  Costa  Water 
Co.  from  private  consumers  in 
Oakland,  and  from  City  of  Oak- 
land for  1904 $576,626  37 

Sum  paid  to  C.  C.  W.  Co.  by  City  for 

public  supply    $  71,300  oo     71,300  oo 

Amount  collected  from  private  con- 
sumers in  Oakland  by  C.  C.W.  Co. 
in  1904 — $505,326  37 

First  year's  costs  on  Municipal  Plant 

Interest  on  $5,557,500,00  Bonds  at 

4% $222,300  oo 

(When  the  plant  starts  into  opera- 
tion there  will  have  been  redeemed 
$142,500  oo  of  the  bonds  ) 

Sinking  Fund  for  Bond  Redemp- 
tion    142,500  oo 

Operation  of  Plant *i 00,000  oo 

TOTAL —  — $464,800  oo 

Sum  paid  to  C.  C.  W.  Co.  by  City  of 
Oakland  for  public  supply,  which 
amount  may  be  transferred  from 
Tax  Fund  to  Water  Fund  without 
changing  present  tax  rate $  71,300  oo 

Average  sum  annually  paid  by  the 
City  during  the  last  4 K  years  as 
expenses  of  water  rate  litigation 
with  C.  C.W.  Co.,  and  which  sum 
may  be  transferred  from  Tax 
Fund  to  Water  Fund  without 

changing  present  tax  rate 11,16111 

— $  82,461  ii 

The  difference  representing  the  sum 
which  must  be  raised  from  water 
rates  to  private  consumers  $382,33889 

Amount  collected  from  private  con- 
sumers in  Oakland  by  C.  C.  W. 
Co.,  in  1904  (See  above) 505,326  37 

Reduction  of  amount  to  be  paid  by 
private  consumers $122,987  48 


This  reduction  of  $122,987.48  is  equivalent  to  24  1-3  per 
cent  of  $505,326  37,  or  the  rate  to  private  consumers  during 
ike  first  year's  operation  of  the  municipal  plant  would  be  24  1-3 
PER  CENT  less  than  that  collected  by  the  Contra  Costa  Water 
Company  during  the  year  1904,  WITHOUT  INTERFERING  WITH 

EXISTING  TAX  RATES  IN  ANY   MANNER  WHATEVER. 

In  addition  the  city  will  have  acquired  a  tangible  clear 
asset  amounting  to  $142,500.00,  which  is  the  annual  instal- 
ment of  the  sinking  fund  for  bond  redemption.  Taking 
this  into  consideration  THE  REAL  NET  GAIN  TO  THE  PEOPLE 
OF  OAKLAND  is  $122,987.48,  plus  $142,500.00,  or  $265,487.48, 
•which  is  46%  of  the  amount  collected  by  the  Contra  Costa  Water 
Company  from  private  consumers  and  the  City  of  Oakland  in 
1904. 

*This  figure  represents  the  actual  cost  of  operations 
(allowing  the  liberal  sum  of  $25,000  for  administrative  ex- 
penses) which  the  plant  would  incur,  with  no  allowance  made 
for  repairs  or  extensions.  As  the  plant  would  be  new,  there 
would  be  no  repairs  or  extensions  to  speak  of,  during  the 
first  three  years  after  operations  began.  Following  this 
there  would  be  some  expense  through  both  causes.  This, 
however,  would  not  increase  the  water  rates,  nor  prevent 
them  from  continuing  to  fall,  as  there  would  be  a  saving  each 
year  in  interest  paid  upon  the  successive  redemptions  of  the 
bonded  indebtedness,  which  would  much  more  than  offset 
the  cost  of  extensions  and  repairs  to  the  system. 

Municipal  plant '          But  your  client  declares  that  it  will  be  a  competitor  in 

will  drive   Contra  the  field  against  the  municipal  plant  and  that  such  plant 

Costa    from      the  shall  not  get  all  the  water  consumers.     On  the  contrary  it  is 

fi«'d.  demonstrable  that  not  one  taxpayer  will  take  water  from  your 

plant,  unless  such  taxpayer  be  some  person  who  has  some 

special  interest  in  the  company,  is  willing  to  donate  a  large 

part  of  his  money  to  it,  and  whose  interests  are  not  in  common 

with  his  fellow  water  consumers;  even  this  person  would  not 

patronize  it  long,  for  your  client's  Oakland  plant  must  very 

shortly  thereafter  go  out  of  existence. 

And  the  reason  is  very  simple:  The  city  plant  will  start 
in  furnishing  water  at  cost.  That  cost  will  be  24>i% 
below  the  water  rates  of  1904.  Your  client  will  never  offer 
water  to  the  people  at  a  less  rate  than  the  people  will  offer 
it  to  themselves  through  their  city  plant.  Whatever  fall  you 
make  in  rates,  the  rates  of  the  city  plant  will  fall  to  meet  it. 
If  you  force  the  people  to  furnish  water  to  themselves  at  less 
than  cost  they  will  do  so,  making  up  the  difference  out  of 
general  taxation. 

Taxes  reduced.  The  appended  tables,  based  upon  water  being  furnished 

by  the  city  plant  at  present  rates,  brings  out  the  fact  here- 
tofore stated,  that  as  soon  as  a  deficit  in  the  municipal  water 
plant  fund  shall  appear,  and  said  plant  begin  to  pinch  upon 
taxation,  the  taxpaying  water  consumers,  who  may  be  taking 
from  your  plant  would,  in  defense  of  their  own  pockets,  leave 
you  at  once  and  rush  to  the  municipal  plant.  The  truth  is 
that  they  will  not  wait  for  that  point  to  be  reached.  They 
will  leave  your  plant  at  present  rates  and  go  to  the  municipal 
plant,  in  order  to  get  a  reduction  of  taxation.  This  reduction 
also  appears  by  the  table  as  follows : 


Table  I.— ON  BASIS  OF  CONTRA  COSTA  WATER  RATES  FOR  1904 


al 

p 

IP 

)f  water  consu 
by  Municipal  P 

isumers. 

o  8 

I-B^ 

<  ^  « 

w  Pk  f6 

11  j 

.a  M 

£ 

||| 

i^  «  '~ 

£    *    K 

RATES 

s  *t 

ill 

a  o  g 

fp 

•centage  < 
'urnished 
•ivate  Cot 

c 
•a 

g  5-B 
S  S  g 
§•3^ 

Q  S2 
RJB 
S 

fi 

III* 

|sll 

S  =£ 

PRIVATE  +  CITY  =  TOTAL 

3  o 

P4 

IOO 

^505,326.  37 

$122,9^7.47 

None 

017 

243  reduction 

-|-  71,300  oo 

$576,626.37 

90 

454,793-73 

72,454.83 

None 

•  259 

142  reduction 

—  |—  71,300  oo 

$526,093.73 

80 

404,261.09 

21,922.19 

None 

.218 

042  reduction 

-J-  71,300.00 

$475,561.09 

75^3 

382.338.90    . 

None 

•  None 

.26 

None 

H    7I'3°o-o° 

Rate) 

$453,638-9° 

70 

353,728.46 

None 

$28,610.44 

•315 

055  increase 

-j-  71,300.00 

• 

$425,028.46 

60 

303,195.82 

None 

79,143.08 

•413 

153  increase 

-|-  71,300.00 

$374,495-82 

5° 

252,663.19 

None 

129,675.71 

I.4II 

251  increase 

-|-7i,3oo.oo 

$323,963-19 

40 

202,130.55 

None 

180,208.35 

I.S08 

.348  increase 

-J-  71,300.00 

$273,430-55 

3° 

i5I,597-9I 

None 

230,740.99 

I.  606 

.446  increase 

-|-7i,3oo.oo 

$222,897.91 

20 

101,065.28 

None 

281,273.62 

1.704 

.544  increase 

-|-  71,300.00 

$172,365.28 

IO 

50,532.64 

None 

331,806.2 

I.  80 

.642  increase 

-i-  71,300.00 

I 

$121,832.64 

0 

0 

None 

382,338-9 

2.00 

.  74    increase 

Free 
Wat« 

t                 -1-71,300.00 

ate  Coo 
•umers 

$7i,30o.oc 

> 

IS 

Should  the  proportion  of  city  plant  customers  fall  below 
f  the  total  number  of  water  consumers,  then  a  defi- 
cit would  begin  to  appear  in  the  water  fund  which  would  have 
to  be  met  through  the  tax  rates.  This  deficit  would  bear 
equally  upon  the  consumers  of  both  plants,  and  would  mark 
the  point  where  the  patron  of  the  Contra  Costa  plant  would 
have  to  pay  not  only  as  much  money  for  his  water  as  would 
be  paid  by  the  patrons  of  the  city  plant,  but  added  to  this  a 
penalty  collected  through  his  tax  rates  because  of  his  refusal 
to  take  water  from  the  city  plant. 

In  other  words,  when  the  city  plant  is  in,  there  will  be  a 
given  quantity  of  water  for  each  and  every  consumer  in  the 
city,  for  which  given  quantity  he  must  pay,  either  through 
paying  water  rates,  or  tax  rates.  If  he  allows  his  share  of 
the  water  to  run  into  the  sea  and  chooses  to  take  that  of  the 
Contra  Costa  Company  and  pay  for  it,  he  must  also  pay  for 
his  share  of  the  water  which  he  has  thus  permitted  to  run 
to  waste.  Under  such  conditions  he  wastes  in  two  directions : 
he  lets  his  municipal  water  go  to  waste,  and  he  wastes  his 
money  by  paying  it  to  the  Contra  Costa  for  water  while  his 
own  water  is  going  to  waste. 

The  question  is:  Will  any  one  do  this?  My  answer  is 
that  not  one  water  consumer  in  Oakland  will  do  it.  To  the 
contrary,  he  will  take  water  from  the  city  plant  not  only  to 
keep  from  increasing  his  taxation,  but  he  will  do  so  to  get 
the  benefit  of  a  reduction  in  taxation,  if  the  existing  Contra 
Costa  rates  be  those  upon  which  the  city  plant  begins  to 
furnish  water. 

But  I  have  said  that  my  opinion  is  that  in  practice,  when 
the  Council  determines  upon  the  rates  the  city  will  charge 
for  water,  it  will  let  the  tax  rates  remain  as  they  are,  making 
no  reduction  in  them,  but  begin  to  furnish  water  at  a  24^ 
per  cent  reduction  from  the  present  rates,  which  rates  so 
reached,  would,  with  all  the  consumers  supplied  from  the 
city  plant,  yield  exactly  the  cost  of  the  water.  The  table 
based  upon  rates  yielding  the  actual  cost  of  the  municipal 
water  to  all  the  people  is  as  follows: 


Table    II. —  ON    BASIS    OF   24^%    CUT  IN    PRESENT 

WATER  RATES  TO  PRIVATE   CONSUMERS 

STARTING  WITH  PRESENT  TAX  RATES. 


I! 

o  8 

£ 

:  of  water  consu 
by  municipal  ] 
isumers. 

P 

st 

felg 

ill 
111 

•  w 
rt 

NCREASE 

present  tax  ] 
cover  deficit 

fl! 

* 

H 

"  S  $ 

Q 

S 

PRIVATE  +  CITY  =  TOTAL 

' 

0 

TOO 

$382,338  90 

None 

1.26 

None 

-|-  71,300.00 

i  Pres. 
Kate) 

$453,638  9° 

90 

344,105  01 

$38,23389 

1-334 

.074 

-|-  71,300.00 

.$415,405  01 

80 

305,871    12 

76.467  78 

1  .408 

.148 

—  |—  71,300.00 

$377,171    I2 

70 

267,637   23 

114,701  67 

1.482 

.  222 

1                          -1-71,300.00 

$338,937   23 

60 

229,403  34 

152,935  56  1.556 

.296 

-|-  71,300.00 

$300,703  34 

5° 

191,169  45 

191,169.45 

1.63 

•37 

-[-71,300  oo 

$262,469  45 

40 

I52,935  56 

229,403  34 

1.704 

444 

-|-7i,30o.oo 

$224,235.56 

3° 

114,701  67 

267,637  23 

1.778 

•  S1^ 

-!-  71,300.00 

$186,001  67 

20 

76.467.78 

305,871    12 

1.852 

592 

—|—  71,300.00 

$147,767.78 

10 

38,233  89 

344,105  oi 

1  .926 

.666 

-!-  71,300.00 

$109,533  89 

0 

0 

382,33889 

2  .00 

•74 

-]-  71,300.00 

$71,300.00) 

14 

The  percentages  in  this  column  from  100%  down  are 
purely  theoretical,  and  could  never  occur  in  practice;  for  the 
reason  that,  as  stated  above,  immediately  a  deficit  began  to 
appear  in  the  water  fund,  the  taxpayers,  through  whom  all 
water  is  consumed,  would,  in  order  to  hold  down  taxation, 
immediately  leave  the  Contra  Costa  and  go  over  to  the  city 
plant.  The  percentages,  however,  with  the  calculations 
based  upon  them,  are  appended  as  a  matter  of  theory  and 
curiosity. 

Contra       Costa  It  is  useless  to  further  pursue  the  inquiry  through  such 

could  not  exist  in  tables  as  above  to  ascertain  what  might  be  the  condition 
competition     with  with  your  client  cutting  40%  and  getting  this  or  that  per- 
municipal  plant,      centageof  the  consumers,  or  its  cutting  50%  or  60%,  or  what- 
ever other  per  cent,  and  getting  one  or  another  percentage 
of  the  consumers;  suffice  it  to  say,  that  your  company  could 
not  make  them  and  exist.     A  condition  even  of  free  water 
would  not  be  without  precedent  in  California.     The  City  of 
Monrovia  in  Southern  California  had  it  for  years  and  found 
it  of  immense  advantage.     The  water  rate  payers  are  all  tax 
payers.    This  statement  holds  good  even  in  the  case  of  tenants 
who,  in  fact,  pay  water  rent  for  their  landlords.     They  would 
Tenant   benefit-  not  patronize  your  client,  for  the  money  they  thus  paid  would 
ed    by    municipal  have  to  be    paid  over  again  by  their  landlords  to  the  city 
plant-  in  taxation,  and  would,  of  course,  be  charged  back  again  to 

the  tenants,  in  increased  rent.  The  tenant  is  interested  in 
reducing  his  rent,  through  lessening  taxation,  rather  than 
raising  his  rent  through  increasing  taxation. 

From  this  explanation  it  must  be  clear  to  you,  and  if  not 
to  you,  it  will  be  clear  to  the  people  of  Oakland,  that  with 
the  city  plant  in  existence  you  would  be  absolutely  powerless 
as  a  competitor  against  the  city  plant.  Your  functions  as 
a  water  carrier  for  Oakland  would  thereupon  cease — you  must 
then  forthwith  close  your  doors  to  business  in  Oakland. 

We  have  thus  shown  that  the  municipal  plant  in  opera- 
tion would  not  raise  tax  rates  one  dollar  unless  it  reduced 
water  rates  one  dollar,  and  this  reduction  being  below  the 
standard  of  24  1-3  less  than  your  present  rates.  That  stand- 
ard of  reduction  below  your  present  rates  would  be  increased 
every  year.  As  each  installment  of  the  bonded  debt  is  paid 
off,  amounting  to  $142,500  per  year,  there  is  thus  much  less 
interest-bearing  debt  outstanding.  Four  per  cent  on  $142,- 
500  is  $5,700  oo ;  so  the  year  following  the  putting  in  of  the 
city  plant  we  would  pay  $5,700.00  less  interest  on  the  bonds, 
which  credit  would  redound  to  the  benefit  of  the  consumers 
by  allowing  them  a  further  reduction  of  about  i  %  from  your 
existing  water  rates.  The  second  year,  therefore,  the  24  1-3  % 
reduction  would  be  increased  to  25  1-3%;  the  third  year  it 
would  be  26  1-3%;  the  fourth  year  it  would  be  27  1-3%; 
the  fifth  year  it  would  be  28  1-3%;  the  tenth  year  it  would 
be  33  1-3%.  And  so  on  it  would  go,  the  water  rates  getting 


less  and  less  each  year,  until  the  plant  was  entirely  paid  for, 
when  a  large  additional  reduction  would  occur  through  not 
having  further  to  provide  the  bond  installment.  This  would 
leave  the  expenses  of  the  municipal  plant  the  cost  of  oper- 
ating it  solely,  which  would  be  about  80%  less  than  your 
present  water  rates. 

The  above  percentages  are  based  on  the  present  popula- 
tion of  Oakland  and  if  allowance  is  made  for  the  prospective 
increase  the  showing  will  be  very  much  more  favorable  to 
the  City  of  Oakland. 

TWJ — Why  do  your  client's  writers  persistently  state       Not    true    that 
to  the  public  that  the  people  of  Oakland  shall  have'paidin  people    must   pay 
"taxes  for  bond  interest  alone  $690,000"  and  "also  $420,656  |1»11<W8fl      before 
sinking  fund,  or  a  total  of  $1,110,650  before  they  get  any   they  9et  water- 
water?"     Do  not  you,  your  client  and  its  writers  know  that 
such  statements  are  incorrect? 

To  prove  their  error  let  us  take  a  hypothetical  case.  In 
this  connection  I  may  say  that  all  of  our  computations  with 
regard  to  this  matter  must  necessarily  be  based  upon  hypoth- 
eses, and  the  case  which  I  select  is  chosen  arbitrarily  for  the 
purpose  of  illustrating  merely  the  proper  method  of  computa- 
tion. Let  us  then  assume  that  it  takes  three  years  to  con- 
struct the  municipal  plant  and  that  construction  begins  on 
June  i ,  1905,  let  us  further  assume  that  the  cost  of  construction 
will  be  paid  for  as  the  work  progresses,  and  that  instead  of 
many  payments  being  made  at  intervals  throughout  the 
period  of  construction,  there  will  be  three  issuances  of  in- 
stallments of  the  bonds,  each  issuance  at  the  end  of  a  year 
and  each  one-third  of  the  total  bond  issue:  Each  payment 
would,  therefore,  be  through  the  issuance  of  $1,900,000  of 
bonds.  Of  the  bonds  issued  June  i,  1906,  there  would  on 
June  i,  1907,  fall  due  $76,000  interest  and  $47,500  would 
have  to  be  provided  for  redemption  of  one-fortieth  of  the  quan- 
tity of  bonds  outstanding,  making  a  total  sum  to  be  provided 
for  from  taxation  of  $123,500.  At  the  same  time  there  is 
issued  another  $1,900,000  of  the  bonds.  On  June  first  of 
the  next  year — 1908 — there  would  be  payable  interest  on 
$1,852,500,  plus  $1,900,000  "=•  $3,752,500,  or  $150,100; 
also  one-fortieth  of  the  sum  of  the  bonds  issued,  or  $95,000, 
making  a  total  for  that  year  to  be  raised  from  taxation  of 
$245,100.  At  the  same  time  there  would  be  issued  the  re- 
maining $1,900,000  of  bonds,  and  the  plant  be  completed 
and  the  water  turned  in. 

To  recapitulate  the  above  we  have: 

June  i ,  1905 — Work  started 

June  i,  1906,  Bonds  issued  for $1,900,000 

June  i,  1907,  Bonds  issued  for 1,900,000 


i6 

And  payments  as  follows : 

Interest  on  $1,900 ,000  at  4% $     76,000 

1-40  for  Redemption  Fund 47,500 


Total $    123,500 

June  i,  1908,  Bonds  issued  for $1,900,000 

Interest  on 3,752,500  150,100 

1-40  Redemption  Fund 95,000 


Total $    245.100 

Grand  Total $    368,600 

$123,500  would  raise  the  tax  rate  for  the  year  .239. 

$245,100  would  raise  the  tax  rate  .475. 

So  that  instead  of  there  being  $1,110,650  to  be  paid  out 
of  taxation  on  account  of  the  water  plant  during  the  three 
years  before  water  becomes  distributable,  as  your  client 
through  its  writers  erroneously  states,  there  would  be  but 
$368,600,  an  amount  which,  being  apportioned  between  the 
two  years,  would  occasion  but  a  comparatively  small  raise 
in  taxation.  The  year  following,  the  water  plant  being  in 
operation,  the  plant  would  take  care  of  its  own  expenses, 
would  not  have  to  call  upon  the  tax  lists  any  further,  and 
the  people  would  start  off  with  water  at  24^5%  reduction, 
which  would,  in  three  years  following,  more  than  return 
them  in  saving  upon  their  water  bills  the  moneys  which  they 
had  advanced  through  their  taxes  to  bring  the  municipal 
plant  into  existence. 

Three — Why  does  your  client,  through  its  writers,  and 
others,  assert  that  such  litigation  as  your  corporation  and 
its  associate  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  might  bring 
against  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company,  would  tie  up  the 
building  of  the  plant  and  prevent  the  delivery  of  our  waters 
to  Oakland  until  the  conclusion  of  the  litigation — which, 
they  say,  would  drag  along  for  years — when  both  you,  your 
client,  its  writers  and  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company 
must  know  that  such  statements  are  absurd? 

Litigation     will  Neither  your  corporation,  the  Spring  Valley,  nor  any 

not  prevent  or  de-   one  e]se  cou\ft  &o  any  such  thing.     If  suits  were  brought 

lay      delivery    of  agajnst  US)  as  js  threatened,  and  we  are  at  a  loss  to  know  or 

wa  er<  imagine  upon  what  tenable  ground  either  or    any    of    you 

hope  to  get  into  court  if  any  such  litigation  occurs,  it  would 

not  stop  construction  an  hour,  nor  hold  back  water  a  day, 

and  we  have  not  the  slightest  fear    of    the    outcome.     For 

ourselves,  however,  we  do  not  believe  that  such    suits    will 

be  brought,  at  least,  with  any  idea  of  ultimate    success   on 

your  part. 

Fourth — Do  you  or  your  client  really  believe  that  the 
people  of  Oakland  do  not  see  through  your  client's  scheme 
which  its  writers  constantly  propose  of  making  the  munici- 
pal bonds  rest  upon  the  water  plant  alone? 


17 

Do  you  not  know  that  the  people  realize  that  such  is 
merely  a  ruse  on  your  part  to  deteat  the  bond  issue?  That 
there  is  no  law  making  such  a  thing  possible — why  do  your 
writers  ask  the  question? 

Fifth — Your  client's  writers  are  constantly  making  the 
people  who  sign  their  "interviews"  say  that  our  proposition 
is  "too  vague:"  What  dees  your  client  mean  by  that?  or 
is  the  phrase  itself  intended  to  be  "vague"  and  convey  no 
meaning,  but  merely  an  expression  derogatory  to  our  project? 

For  our  part  we  think  our  project  is  exceedingly  defined     Bay  Cities  prop- 
and  direct.     We  own  the  land,  we  own  the  waters.     We  know  osition    a     direct 
what  we  own  and  what  can  be  done  with  it.     The  first  half  one- 
of  this  statement  comprehends  results  of  a  mass  of  work  of 
many  lawyers;  the  latter  half  the  charts  and  figures  of  many 
engineers.     As  a  result  of  the  work  and  opinion  of  these 
engineers  and  lawyers  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  has 
invested  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  in  the  prop- 
erties which  it  has  offered  to  sell    the   City    of    Oakland.  To 
our  minds  language  does  not  admit  of  more  direct,  explicit 
and  comprehensive  statements  than  we  have  made,  or  that 
is  embodied  in  our  proposition,  and  if  you  can  really  find 
anything  vague  in  what  we  offer,  we  should  be  glad  to  clear 
your  mind  upon  it. 

Sixth — Why  does  your  client,  through  its  writers,  state  Bay  Cities  Wa- 
that  the  cost  of  the  Bay  Cities  plant  will  be  largely  in  terCompany  guar- 
excess  of  the  amount  covered  by  the  proposed  bond  issue?  antee  complete 

If  you  mean  that  the  expense  of  constructing  the  plant  P|arvt  f°r  proposed 
will  be  largely  in  excess  of  the  amount  of  the  bonds,  we  say  amount- 
that  we  will  construct  the  plant  for  that  amount,  and  give 
bonds  in  satisfactory  amount  to  substantiate  our  undertaking. 

Seventh — Why  does  your  client  have  its  writers  prepare, 
and  cause  to  be  printed  in  the  San  Francisco  and  Oakland 
newspapers,  such  misleading  articles  as  have  recently  appeared 
attacking  the  Bay  Cities  proposition?  Let  me  cite  a  few  of 
the  misstatements  with  which  they  abound: 

It  is  stated  that  "The  Oakland  Council,  by  asking  the      .... 

1  .  11/-A  «  misstatements  of 

people  to  vote  upon  themselves  a  debt  of  $5,700,000  to  buy  contra        Costa's 
a  water  plant  (Bay  Cities)  is  asking  them  to  pay  a  tax  during  advocates. 
the  period  of  construction,  without  any  return  at  all,  of 
$1,110,650."     This  statement  is  false,  utterly  and  absolutely, 
as  shown  above. 

It  is  stated  that  "The  law  requires  the  bonds  to  be  sold 
in  a  lump:"  This  statement  is  false ;  they  could  not  beso  sold 
under  the  law. 

It  is  stated  that  "Trying  to  get  a  municipal  plant  while 
leaving  a  competitor  in  the  field  everywhere  results  in  loss 
and  waste."  This  statement  is  false  in  toto.  It  nowhere 
results  or  ever  has  resulted  in  loss  and  waste,  excepting  to 
the  private  plant.  Vallejo  and  Santa  Rosa  are  instances  in 
point  in  this  state. 


i8 

It  is  stated  that  "in  Europe  the  law  requires  that  all 
private  plants  shall  be  bought  before  entering  upon  municipal 
ownerships."  There  is  no  such  law  anywhere  in  Europe,  so 
far  as  I  know,  and  I  challenge  your  writer  to  produce  such 
law.  It  is  true,  however,  that  no  European  government 
would  bother  with  putting  in  a  municipal  plant,  while  a  pri- 
vate plant  existed  in  the  field.  If  your  plant  were  in  a  Euro- 
pean community,  the  method  of  the  government  in  dealing 
with  you  would  be  very  different  from  what  it  is  in  Oakland. 
Having  concluded  to  put  in  its  own  waterworks,  the  govern- 
ment would  send  its  Desmond  Fitzgerald  to  appraise  the 
value  of  your  plant.  Finding  it  to  be  worth  $2,689,185, 
that  sum  would  be  deposited,  payable  to  you  on  demand  by 
the  Royal  or  Imperial  Treasurer.  The  government  would 
then  proceed  to  take  over  your  plant.  Let  your  client,  if  it 
dare,  acquire  a  literary  bureau,  paid  interviewers,  political 
corps,  subsidized  newspapers  and  all  the  rest  of  its  equipment 
and  paraphernalia  for  affecting  public  opinion  to  its  ends  and 
try  such  a  thing  on  a  European  community.  Why,  no  sooner 
would  its  first  publication  go  forth,  redundant  with  its  fabri- 
cations and  false  colorings,  than  your  establishment  would 
be  surrounded  by  a  detachment  of  "gens  d'armes"  and  the 
whole  outfit  of  you,  president,  lawyers,  writers,  publishers 
and  politicians  would  be  lined  up  and  marched  off  to  the 
calaboose.  You  had  better  instruct  your  writers  to  "let  up" 
on  their  European  comparisons  in  their  future  articles. 

Eight — As  a  taxpayer,  distressed  through  the  fear  of 
having  to  pay  a  few  farthings  of  increased  taxation  for  the 
two  years  while  the  city  plant  is  being  built,  then  get  it  all 
back  through  reduced  water  rates  during  the  succeeding 
two  years,  with  further  reduction  in  rates  from  that  on — as 
such  a  taxpayer,  what  do  you  think  of  the  proposition  of 
paying  your  client  its  price  of  $8,000,000  for  its  10,000,000 
gallon  plant,  then  immediately  thereafter  forced  to  buy  addi- 
tional water  from  elsewhere  (for  the  Contra  Costa  is  now 
furnishing  its  full  limit  of  supply)  and  to  pay  therefor  the 
price  which  the  Bay  Cities  asks,  $3,750,000  (for  it  could  not 
be  had  for  less) ;  making  in  all  a  total  cost  of  at  least  $i  1,750,- 
ooo.  Let  me  ask  you  what  do  you  think  of  that  for  a  bond 
issue,  and  how  does  that  strike  you  as  a  taxpayer,  and  as 
such  how  would  it  affect  your  tax  schedule? 

City       cannot  Ninth — Your   client   through   its    writers   is    repeatedly 

make  contract  telling  the  people  that  they  do  not  know  what  they  are  going 
until  people  vote  to  vote  bonds  upon,  because  they  are  not  permitted  to  see 
bonds,  the  contract  which  it  is  proposed  sha1!  be  entered  into  be- 

tween the  city  and  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company.  Why 
does  your  client  do  that,  when  it  knows  it  is  not  possible  to 
enter  into  any  contract  until  the  people  have,  by  their  votes, 
authorized  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  to  make  one? 

Your  client  is  seeking  to  confuse  the  public  mind  by 


substituting    contract   for   proposition.     The    people    are    in- 
formed upon  what  they  are  voting  by  reference  to  our  prop- 
osition to  them,  now  on  file  with  the  City  Council.     That 
proposition  is  elaborately  presented,  being  recited  with  great 
explicitness,  the  entire  aggregate  of  the  properties  to  be  sold 
fully  shown,   many  of  the  features  being  illustrated  with 
charts  and  tables.     It  has  all  been  printed  in  the  public 
press  of  Oakland,  and  to  present  it  herewith  would  require     Bax  Cities  prop- 
extended  space.     Briefly,  however,  it  is  to  sell  to  the  city  in  osition      perfectly 
fee  simple  about  8,000  acres  of  land,  together  with  water  c|ear- 
rights  to  a  minimum  of  20,000,000  gallons  of  water  per  day 
in  the  driest  year.     In  ordinary  years  there  would  be  up- 
wards of  25,000,000  gallons  per  day  yielded  by  the  properties. 
To  erect  dams   and  create  reservoirs  for  impounding  this      city      to      own 
water,  all  of  which  shall  belong  to  the  city,  to  build  51  miles  p|ant    and    water 
of  wood  stave  pipe  line  and  bring  that  water  to  the  charter  supply, 
line  of  Oakland,  where  it  may  be  distributed  to  the  people 
through  the  new  distributing  service  which  the  city  will  build, 
unless,  as  is  suggested  by  Mr.  Mott,  the  distributing  system 
of  your  client  can  be  bought  at  a  reasonable  figure,  which 
would  make  the  spending  of  the  entire  amount  needful  to 
build  a  new  distributing  system  unnecessary. 

In  respect  to  the  matter  of  the  contract,  let  me  here  state 
that  the  Bay  Cities  Company  is  ready  at  any  and  all  times 
within  the  period  fixed  by  our  communication  to  the  Council 
to  enter  into  a  contract  satisfactory  to  the  city,  whenever 
the  city  on  its  part  is  ready  to  contract  with  us.  The  getting 
up  of  the  contract  is  a  matter  of  work  for  engineers  and  law-  . 

yers,  and  the  people's  representatives,  the  Mayor,  City  Coun- 
cil, City  Attorney  and  City  Engineer,  can  be  trusted  to  take 
•care  of  the  city's  interest  in  that  behalf. 

Tenth — Why  does  your  client  through  its  writers  re- 
peatedly complain  about  the  wood  stave  pipe  line  in  which  it  is 
proposed  to  bring  the  waters  of  the  municipal  plant  to  Oak- 
land, when  your  client  knows,  and  its  writers  should  know, 
that  engineers  agree,  and  engineering  works  recognize,  that 
for  carrying  water  under  pressure  an  iron  hooped  wood  stave 
pipe  is  the  best  pipe  for  the  purpose  that  exists? 

I  will  mention  the  following  as  specimens  of  the  mis- 
statements  which  your  client  is  using  to  prejudice  the  public 
-mind  upon  this  feature  of  the  proposed  construction.  I 
will  cite  only  two,  though  I  could  enumerate  many  more. 

First— that  "Desmond  Fitzgerald's  report  condemns 
the  conveyance  of  water  through  a  wood  pipe  as  insufferable." 
The  statement  is  false.  Desmond  Fitzgerald  did  not  con- 
demn conveying  the  water  through  the  wood  pipe  at  all.  He 
objected  to  the  use  of  wood  stave  construction  in  the  force 
main  leading  from  the  pumps.  Such  force  main  is  not  now 
included  in  the  plans  before  the  Council.  The  only  objector 
to  the  wood  pipe  is  a  certain  one  of  your  writers,  whose 
name  I  sha1!  not  mention  in  these  pages. 


Second — "The  friction  of  water  rushing  through  a  wooden 
pipe  under  such  a  pressure  as  it  will  bear  wears  away  the 
wood.  The  wood  fibre  planed  off  by  the  friction  will  reach 
us  in  our  drinking  water,  and  while  we  are  drinking  up  the 
wood  of  which  the  pipe  is  made,  it  will  get  thinner  and  begin 
to  break." 

The  statement  is  false  and  absurd.  It  is  a  peculiaritv 
of  wood  pipes  carrying  water  under  pressure,  that  their  inside 
remains  smooth,  and  does  not  form  tubercles,  as  do  iron  or 
steel  pipes.  After  the  water  is  turned  in  the  pipe  goes  through 
a  sort  of  sweating  or  saturating  process,  and  thereupon  imme- 
Woo  stave  pipe  ^iately  begins  to  form  a  skin  coating  upon  its  inside.  The 
e  very  b«  s  con-  j^^^g  water  moves  upon  this  skin,  and  does  not  touch  the 
wood  at  all.  The  skin  becomes  slightly  thicker  and  tougher 
as  years  go  by,  but  the  wood  within  does  not  change.  How 
long  a  wood  pipe  will  last  is  not  known,  but  London  had  400 
miles  of  it  in  use  for  218  years,  and  during  recent  reconstruc- 
tion it  was  found  to  be  quite  sound.  Although  the  wood 
practically  does  not  deteriorate,  the  bands  do,  and  after  the 
laose  of  many  years  must  be  replaced. 

Eleventh — Your  client  is  supplying  the  cities  of  Berkeley 

and  Alameda  from  the  same  sources  from  which  it  now  takes 

water  for  Oakland.     Two  fires  of  recent  occurrence  in  Ber- 

Contra       Costa  fceiey^  One  the  Town  Hall,  the  other  a  large  furniture  fac- 

supply  insufficient  torV)  showed  a  failure  of  water  in  your  client's  supply  pipes, 

o  guarantee    fire  &Q  -th  t  th    prOperties  were  destroyed.     The  factory  is  now 

protection.  .  i-      fr       j  t      i  *  *.i  _•_!*_ 

suing  your  client  for  damages  for  loss  of  the  property  because 

of  its  failure  to  furnish  water  to  extinguish  the  fire.  This 
shows  your  water  resources  are  exhausted.  With  all  the 
purchasable  water  lands  about  the  bay  corraled  by  your  con- 
frere, the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  to  keep  out  com- 
petition from  its  business  of  supplying  San  Francisco,  where 
would  you  find  additional  water  lands?  And  if  found,  how 
much  would  you  increase  the  cost  of  water  to  the  people  of 
Oakland  by  reason  of  your  expense  incurred  in  acquiring 
such  new  sources,  and  extracting  water  therefrom? 

Twelfth — As  a  citizen  and  taxpayer  having  investigated 
the  question  of  water  supply  for  municipalities,  we  assume, 
in  your  unbiased  and  unprejudiced  research,  that  you  know 
how  many  cities  in  the  United  States  having  the  same  popu- 
lation of  Oakland,  or  larger,  own  their  own  water  works,  and, 
if  so,  will  you  kindly  give  this  information  to  the  people  of 
Oakland?  Also  state  what  cities  the  size  of  Oakland,  or 
larger,  in  the  United  States,  do  not  own  their  own  water 
works. 

Thirteenth — Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  Contra  Costa  Water 
Company  furnishes  water  to  Berkeley  and  Alameda  at  a  much 
less  rate  than  they  charge  the  citizens  of  Oakland;  and  is  it 
not  a  fact  that  they  charge  the  municipality  of  Berkeley  and 
Alameda  for  the  water  used  by  the  municipalities  a  much  less 


ai 

rate  than  they  charge  the  City  of  Oakland  for  water  for  the 
same  purposes?  If  your  answer  is  in  the  affirmative,  will 
you  kindly  explain  to  the  people  of  Oakland  why  this  should 
be? 

Fourteenth — If  your  client^defeats  the  bond  proposition 
now  pending,  and  is  thereafter  called  upon  by  the  city  to 
state  a  price  at  which  it  would  sell  its  plant,  would  it  not 
name  a  much  more  prohibitive  figure  than  even  its  present 
price?  And  if  condemnation  proceedings  were  taken  by  the 
city  against  that  plant,  you  having  your  $7,000.000  valuation 
as  res  adjudicate,  would  you  not  expect  to  be  as  successful 
in  getting  your  demands  as  you  have  heretofore  been? 

Fifteenth — Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  expenditures  in  Oak-  Mechanic,  La- 
land  of  some  millions  of  the  $5,700,000  raised  from  sale  of  borer»  Merchant 
bonds  would  GREATLY  BENEFIT  LOCAL  LABOR  CONDITIONS,  *nd  Banke^  bene- 

GIVING    EMPLOYMENT    TO     POSSIBLY    A    THOUSAND    RESIDENTS    Rt*d  financial|y  bX 

OF   OAKLAND,  AFFORDING   A   MARKET   FOR   MUCH    OAKLAND  •*.,    JUJ[t  B*y  Clt" 

MATERIAL,  and  the  money  finally  finding  its  way  into  the  '**  p  *n  ' 

mercantile  community,  produce  activities  all  along  the  line? 

And  this  money  being  new  funds  coming  into  the  city  from 

outside,  would  that  not  be  better  for  the  people  of  the  city 

than  the  presence  of  your  company,  which  takes  large  sums 

of  money  from  them  monthly  and  sends  it  away  ? 

Sixteenth — Do  you  not  appreciate  the  fact  that  the  in- 
stallation by  the  city  of  a  new  modern  plant,  with  an  ample 
supply  of  pure  water  for  fifty  years — abundance  of  water 
for  a.l  purposes,  streets,  parks,  fires  and  e.se,  delivering 
water  at  one-quarter  the  rates  now  paid,  with  the  rates  yearly 
decreasing,  with  the  consciousness  of  your  plant  being  out 
of  the  fie.d,  and  out  of  politics,  that  this  would  have  a  decid- 
edly elevating  effect  upon  the  values  of  property  in  Oakland, 
that  the  career  of  the  city  as  a  factor}.'  center  wou,d  go  rapidly 
on,  with  the  number  of  such  establishments  quickly  increas- 
ing, and  that  a.l  activities  would  bejmmense'y  stimulated? 

Seventeenth— On  my  desk  beside  me  lies  a  printed  cir-       Mr.  Chickering'* 
cular   written   by   you,    entitled    "BAY    CITIES   SCHEME   real    position    on 
COSTLY  AND  CHIMERICAL,"  a  copy  of  which  circu  ar  the    water    qu«- 
was  mai'ed  to  each  of  the  voters  of  Oakland.      In  this  circu  ar  tlon< 
ym  pretend'  to  address  the  people  of  Oak- and  as  a  citizen 
and  a  taxpayer,  revea  ing  therein  no  relation  to  the  Company, 
which  is  iv  .w  admittedly  your  client,  and  you  assert  that  you 
had  not  established  this  re.ation  of  attorney   and  client  at 
the  time  you  started  in  to  write  the  circular.     You  are  un- 
doubtedly  sincere  in  making  this   statement,   but  a.l   your 
friends  be  ieve  that  you  became  sadiy  mixed  as  to  dates, 
and  have  entirely  forgotten  the  date  of  your  employment. 
Won't  you  please  ask  some  of  your  friends  about  it  and  tell 
the  people  of  Oakland  the  result  of  your  inquiries? 

In  that  circular  you  find  extensive  faults  with  the  Bay 
Cities  project.  You  roundly  denounce  it  as  an  absurd  prop- 


osition,  without  foundation,  impracticable,  and  much  else, 
and,  as  a  taxpayer,  a  water  consumer,  a  resident  of  Oakland 
and  a  citizen  "moved  by  civic  pride,"  protest  against  such 
a  scheme  being  "saddled  on  to  the  municipality  of  Oakland." 
,  -i  Further  over  on  my  desk  lies  a  mass  of  documents,  many 
of  them  written  by  yourself,  showing  that  in  the  year  1897 
you  were  associated  with  E.  G.  Wheeler,  at  present  largely 
interested  in  and  Secretary  of  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Com- 
pany, and  that  you  were  aware  at  that  time  that  Mr.  Wheeler 
was  moving  in  the  enterprises,  and  acquiring  the  properties 
out  of  which  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  grew.  That 
you  operated  with  him  in  the  capacity  of  confidential  agent, 
FRIEND  and  attorney.  That  when  it  came  to  organizing  the 
Bay  Cities  Water  Company  in  1902,  which  was  instituted 
for  the  purpose,  among  others,  of  furnishing  Oakland  with 
water,  you  advised  E.  G.  Wheeler  with  regard  to  various 
matters  connected  therewith,  and  among  other  functions 
you  performed  was  that  of  becoming  trustee  for  a  number  of 
the  stockholders  of  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company,  which 
trusteeship  you  continue ^to  hold.  That  in  the  fall  of  1903 
your  relations  with  him  on  this  water  matter  had  lasted  sev- 
eral years,  and  that  he  paid  you  such  fee  as  you  demanded 
for  such  of  your  services  as  were  performed  in  your  capacity 
of  attorney — as  evidenced  by  a  receipted  bill  dated  December 
ist,  1903,  to  which  your  firm's  name  is  attached,  signed  in 
your  own  handwriting.  After,  therefore,  having  continued 
with  this  water  matter  for  years,  (BEING  NOW  A  TRUS- 
TEE FOR  SOME  OF  OUR  STOCKHOLDERS  LIVING 
BEYOND  THE  STATE)  the  very  purpose  of  it  being  to 
supply  with  water  these  cities  of  the  bay,  among  which  was 
Oakland,  you  now  come  out  as  a  citizen  and  a  taxpayer 
"moved  by  civic  pride" ,  TO  SAY  NOTHING  OF  BEING  THE  PAID 

ATTORNEY  OF  THE  CONTRA  COSTA  WATER  COMPANY,  and  assail 

the  work  which  you  aided  in  bringing  about.  A  while  ago, 
you  would,  as  a  "citizen  and  taxpayer"  have  strenuously 
advised  the  people  to  acquire  water  from  the  Bay  Cities 
properties.  Now,  your  feelings  have  been  revolutionized 
through  a  change  in  your  interests,  you  go  forth  in  your  aspect 
as  a  taxpayer  and  characterize  as  "chimerical"  properties 
with  which  you  were  formerly  related.  What  kind  of  law- 
yerism  or  taxpayerism  is  this?  Will  you  give  me  your  idea 
of  the  moral  estimate  of  such  actions  ? 

Will  you  state  to  the  Oakland  public  how  many  shares 
of  stock  of  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company  you  now  hold  as 
trustee  for  out  of  the  State  owners,  whose  interests  you  are 
attempting  to  harm  by  your  attacks  upon  the  properties 
represented  by  their  shares? 

Your  answer  to  the  above  queries  may  have  little  or 
nothing  to  do  with  the  merit  of  the  Bay  Cities  proposition, 
but  as  a  psychological  study  I  think  it  would  be  simply  great. 


In  concluding  my  remarks  I  have  a  parting  word  to 
address 

TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  OAKLAND. 

You  have  for  years  been  struggling  to  procure  for  your- 
self a  municipal  water  system.  You  have  for  years  felt  the 
need  of  this  important  facility  to  your  upward  movement 
as  a  municipality  in  the  scale  of  cities  of  the  United  States. 
With  more  than  forty  out  of  fifty  of  the  largest  cities 
of  the  United  States  owning  their  water  systems,  municipal 
water  works  is  not  an  experiment.  Experience  has  shown 
that  cheap,  pure  water  is  a  basic  essential  to  the  growth  of  a 
city.  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  if  Berkeley,  for 
instance,  should  secure  a  municipal  service  and  furnish  water 
a  third  cheaper  than  Oakland  is  doing,  many  of  the  productive 
enterprises  which  would  otherwise  come  to  Oakland,  would 
center  there.  With  Oakland  having  abundance  of  water  at 
a  quarter  less  rate  than  now,  the  rate  decreasing  annually, 
many  of  the  important  manufacturing  enterprises  of  the 
bay  region  would  be  done  chiefly  in  Oakland. 

You  have  now  an  opportunity  to  procure  a  municipal 
plant.  It  happens  that  our  company  is  organized  for  the 
very  purpose  of  furnishing  you  with  such  a  plant.  Foresee- 
ing your  necessities  for  some  years  we  shaped  our  matters 
to  be  able  to  give  the  best  proposition  possible  to  be  made  by 
any  seller  of  a  plant,  and  we'spared  no  expense  to  that  end. 
We  have  the  best  water  that  is  about  the  bay,  water  equal  in 
quality  to  any  in  the  State,  and  we  have  vast  quantities  of 
it;  we  have  enough  water  to  .supply  all  the  population  of  the 
Bay  Country  for  the  present  and  for  many  years  to  come. 
The  quantity  we  are  selling  to  Oakland  is  but  a  very  small 
part  of  the  properties  we  possess. 

To  get  this  municipal  water  plant  has  been  a  political 
endeavor  with  you  for  a  long  time.  Each  time  the  question 
has  appeared  in  your  politics,  it  has  been  defeated;  you  all 
know  by  whom.  The  plan  has  always  been  to  never  allow 
the  question  to  come  before  the  people.  The  people,  how- 
ever, are  stronger  than  any  corporation,  and  finally  they 
elected  a  Mayor  and  City  Council  who  would  do  their  will. 
These  officials  sought  propositions  in  all  directions  for  supply- 
ing the  city  with  water  and  investigated  all  the  tenders  made. 
They  repeatedly  solicited  the  existing  company  to  make  a 
tender,  but  it  as  persistently  refused.  Finally  the  Council 
selected  the  two  best  propositions  offered,  and  submitted 
them  to  you  for  your  consideration.  You  voted  favorably 
upon  the  Bay  Cities  proposition,  and  that  proposition  is  now 
before  you. 

The  company  occupying  the  field  is  fighting  you  with  its 
wonted  vigor.  It  does  not  intend  that  you  shall  have  a  muni- 
cipal plant.  Its  stockholders  and  bondholders  are  on  the 


24 

streets  soliciting  every  acquaintance  they  have  to  vote  against 
the  bond  proposition.  It  has  a  large  force  of  paid  apents 
who  interview  everyone  they  can  induce  to  ^ay  a  wi  rd  favor- 
able to  their  interests  and  have  them  iign  <u<.h  statements 
for  publication.  It  has  in  its  employ  a  number  of  lawyers 
and  speakers  doing  campaign  work  in  it?  behalf.  The  material 
they  use,  as  I  have  shewn  in  this  letter  are  fictiti<  us  and 
mi.  leading  statements  and  mi  repre  entati-  ns.  N<  t  daring 
to  deny  the  fixed  demand  of  the  pe<  pie  to  have  a  municipal 
plant,  they  are  setting  up  the  cry  that  the  exi;ting  plant 
should  be  purchased,  and  getting  pe<  pie  to  say  that  they 
are  in  favor  of  buying  that  plant.  But  that  plant  cannot  be 
bought;  its  price  is  prohibitive.  Throughout  this  entire 
contest  that  corporation  has  never  named  a  figure  for  its 
plant;  the  Council  could  not  get  it  to  do  so.  Do  you  think 
it  would  accept  for  it  the  $7,000,000  on  which  it  is  now  re- 
ceiving from  the  people  7%  interest,  which  value  was  fixed 
by  the  courts  two  years  ago?  Far  from  it;  it  considers  the 
value  of  its  plant  increasing  annually  by  a  large  sum,  and 
the  Hart  decision  was  two  years  ago.  The  corporation  would 
want  much  more  now  than  it  was  given  then.  Defeat  these 
bonds  and  the  price  asked  would  be  very  much  higher  than 
even  the  price  it  would  fix  now.  That  sum  will  always  be 
such  as  the  people  will  never  consent  to  give.  It  therefore 
rests  with  you,  the  voters  of  Oakland,  not  to  let  pass  this 
opportunity,  which  once  lost  may  never  occur  again,  to  vote 
yourself  free  of  the  conditions  which  you  yourselves  declare 
arc  intolerable. 

OAKLAND  NOW  CONFRONTING  A  WATER  FAMINE. 

Oakland  has  exhausted  her  present  supply  of  water. 
She  is  confronting  a  water  famine.  She  must  have  additional 
water  from  some  source.  The  city  is  practically  without  fire 
protection.  As  a  relief  Councilman  Howard  proposes  con- 
structing a  salt  water  plant  for  fire  purposes  to  cost  $65,413. 

With  the  Bay  Cities  municipal  plant  constructed  there 
would  be  plenty  of  water  for  fire  purposes,  and  all  else,  and 
this  expenditure  would  be  unnecessary.  Even  the  relief 
that  Mr.  Howard's  salt  water  plant  would  give  would  not  long 
suffice.  Oakland  must  have  more  water  for  domestic  use  than 
she  is  now  getting.  This  only  the  proposed  municipal  t)lant 
can  give.  The  putting  in  of  the  municipal  plant  with  the 
Bay  Cities  supply  is  an  absolute  necessity  jar  Oakland. 

Very  truly,   * 

BAY  CITIES  WATER  COMPANY, 
By  W.  S.  TEVIS,  President. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


ry 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


50m-10,'65  (F7824s8) 9482 


IS 


jf 


in 


i- 


tercsts   can    uiiiy     dLtacjv    JLJA*     V*A  *  j.*-w 
CORIPANY,  not  City  of  Oakland. 

9.     Work  for  the  m$&es  lor  three  years. 

ALL  THE  ABOVE  FOR  $3,750,000.00. 


Syracuse,  N.  Y. | 
StocKlen.  Calif. 


UC  SOUTHERN 


inf~  — "•••"•« 

AA      000118486 


